Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by stating the API key requirement and enumerating the returned stats and per-copy fates. It does not discuss pagination behavior or what an empty result means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The nested parentheses are dense but each clause carries information about the return payload. Slightly heavy to parse, which keeps it from a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so by listing the grader stats and copy fates. The auth prerequisite is also covered. The omission of limit/offset behavior is the main remaining gap for a four-parameter paginated read.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the schema documents types only. The description explains the id (lookup key) and gives semantic meaning to the outcome enum values by framing them as per-copy fates with reasons. It says nothing about limit/offset, leaving pagination semantics undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource and retrieval mode: 'a paper run by id', plus the payload contents (grader stats and copies with fates). That is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like polyrank_start_paper or polyrank_get_backtest, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'By id' implies the tool is a lookup for an already-existing paper run, which weakly separates it from polyrank_start_paper, and 'Needs POLYRANK_API_KEY' states a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for discovering run ids.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.